Adventures with an environment-conscious inner-urban community
April 2016
Our apartment building (Sturt Apartments at Christie Walk) was nearly ten years old. It was time to start thinking about sustainability upgrades to reduce our carbon footprint.
Lighting was an easy place to start.
We worked with Adelaide lighting maintenance specialists Globebusters, who replaced unreliable CFL lights in our atrium stairwell and entranceway with long-life LED oyster lights and floodlights. In the courtyard, twin LED sensor floodlights replaced the old energy-hungry incandescent lights.
May 2016
Hot water; one of life’s great privileges. But our little luxury comes at a cost for us, and a carbon-cost for our warming planet. It’s a particular issue in our 4-level block of 13 apartments.
Adventures with an environment-conscious inner-urban community
I’m fortunate to live at Christie Walk in Adelaide. It’s a community of 27 homes and gardens on 2,000m2. It was initiated by Urban Ecology Australia in 1999 as a demonstration project, to promote ecologically-sustainable and community-enhancing urban design and development.
The buildings range from stand-alone straw-bale homes to a 4-level apartment block, all designed for comfortable high-density but low-energy living.
The facilitator asked us to do some dream-work. That’s normally not so hard, but there we were, standing in an awkward-shaped T-allotment strewn with bits of broken glass and featuring some derelict out-buildings. The site had previously been a city recycling depot and in a way one of our goals was to continue that recycling heritage. We were asked to dream of what the features would be for our ideal sustainable-living community on the site.
It’s so heartening to see the faces and words of negotiators from around the world – from local activists to Heads of State – as they explain to Kaveh their motivation to fight climate change.
So many people working so hard to salvage the future. That’s a ray of hope for sure.
Ah, the simple pleasures of summer holidays. Family, friends, celebrations. And a lovely water lily opens up in our pond as if to say “Welcome to the new possibilities of 2016. Enjoy.”
At WOMADelaide’s Planet Talks, Vandana Shiva, Paul Sutton and Tim Jarvis will be challenging the values that we place on our land, food and water, and what these values mean for the health of our planet and ourselves.
I spoke to Dr Vandana Shiva about seeds and freedom.
Brian: You could have been a well-paid physicist, living in style in Mumbai. What first inspired you to focus on environmental activism instead? Vandana: Even while doing physics I had got involved as a volunteer in the Chipko movement that stopped logging in my home region in the Himalaya. In 1982 the Ministry of Environment asked me to assess the impact of mining in Doon Valley. The study led to a Supreme Court case and the mines were shut down. I realized then that I could contribute much more outside formal research systems, and started the Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology. In 1984, as a consequence of the Bhopal disaster and Punjab violence, I undertook a study for the United Nations University which was published as a book The Violence of the Green Revolution. In 1987 I was invited to attend a conference on Biotechnology, and hearing the agrochemical corporations talk about how they needed to do genetic engineering to claim patents, and how they were working on an international Intellectual Property Treaty in the GATT – which became the WTO – I made a commitment to save seeds, and build movements on Globalization, patents on seeds, and GMOs.
Vandana Shiva
Brian: You’ve written that quantum theory taught you guiding principles for your life’s work? How so? Vandana: The quantum principles that have guided my life’s work are non-separability – separateness is not the nature of reality; the world is interconnected. Potential – potential is the nature of reality, not fixed and immutable particles. Everything has potential to evolve. Indeterminacy – because the world is not made of fixed determinate quantities and things, but is a fluid enfolding and unfolding of potential, indeterminateness and uncertainty. Uncertainty – is the nature of being. No excluded middle, no either or.
Brian: You’ve said that “in the soil are the answers to the problem that oil has created”. What is your top priority in the Year of Soils? Vandana: My priority in the Year of Soils is to create awareness about – and love and reverence for – the living soil that supports and sustains us. We have started working on a Manifesto on Soil that will be released at the Expo in Milan which is dedicated to feeding the world. We are preparing a film of Living Soil. In September we will offer a course on A-Z of Agroecology dedicated to training in living soil and living seed. On 1st October we will organize a festival dedicated to the Soil. And from 2nd October to 5th October we will organize a Soil pilgrimage. Hope your readers can join.
Brian: Why is “Seed Freedom” so important to you? Vandana: Seed is the first link in the food chain. In seed is embodied millions of years of evolution, and thousands of years of breeding by our ancestors. In seed lies the future potential of agriculture. Seed freedom has become the most significant commitment of my life because of the threat of genetic engineering, the imposition of patent laws and seed laws that are trying to make seed saving illegal in order to establish a corporate monopoly on seed. In India, high costs of seed and chemicals have pushed farmers into a debt trap. More than 291,000 indebted farmers have committed suicide. When farmers have their own seed, they have no debt. For the freedom of seed, of biodiversity, of farmers, of citizens, we all need to be engaged in Seed Freedom.
Brian: Contamination of organic crops by GMOs from neighbouring farms is a serious concern. What can be done? Vandana: Genetic pollution of organic farms by GMOs is a new form of pollution. Environmental laws recognize that polluters must pay. In the case of GMOs corporations like Monsanto – which define seed as their intellectual property – should pay. UN Biosafety laws have a liability protocol. This should be implemented by every country.
Brian: What is your attitude to “corporate personhood” – granting corporations the status of legal “persons”? Vandana: When corporations claim personhood, they rob citizens of their personhood. When citizens of Vermont were successful in having a labelling law passed, corporations sued Vermont on grounds of their “personhood”. They have tried to argue that citizens knowing what is in their food, and making choices on the basis of that information is taking away the “Free Speech” of the corporate person. The Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses in the New Free Trade treaties such as TPP and TIPP are in fact clauses of corporate personhood through which corporations want to have rights to sue governments that act in the public good on the basis of democracy. The rise of corporate personhood is the death of democracy, the death of sovereignty, the death of human rights, the end of freedom. We cannot allow this fiction to become the basis of governance.
Brian: Food security is a focus for you. But you also stress the importance of organic production in non-food crops such as cotton. Why is that? Vandana: I have witnessed cotton farmers getting trapped in debt as a monopoly of Bt cotton was established. The highest number of suicides are in the cotton belt. We have carried out research on soil and found beneficial organisms killed with Bt cotton. We are doing a study on pollinators. There are no pollinators in Bt cotton fields. To protect our ecosystems, our biodiversity, our soil, our farmers we must promote organic cotton. Farmers using native cotton seeds from Navdanya seed banks and practicing organic production are getting double the yield and up to ten times higher incomes. They are also growing organic food crops and organic kitchen gardens we call Gardens of Hope. Since the organic cotton project has freed farmers from debt, we call it Fibres of Freedom.
Brian: Thank you so much Vandana. We very much look forward to hearing more from you at WOMADelaide.
Vandana Shiva is visiting Australia in March 2015 and will be speaking at:
Once in a lifetime a truly game-changing event reshapes global society. Think back to 1833 when the British Parliament finally bowed to public pressure and the Slavery Abolition Act was passed. Now in our lifetime Polly Higgins is campaigning tirelessly to do for Earth Rights what the abolitionists did for Human Rights. And the goal is in sight.
I spoke to Polly Higgins this week for an update.
Brian: We’re always fascinated to know what motivates people; what got you started on a lifetime of activism? Polly: In my student days I met the Austrian artist and ecologist Hundertwasser. He was a big part of my life then. I went to Austria specifically to seek him out for an interview for my Masters thesis. He was an ecological thinker so much ahead of his time. He talked about things such as: trees have rights; nature has no straight lines, so neither should our architecture.
Brian: But how do you think he would view the idea of a global law for the Earth? After all he was even opposed to the European Union, let alone global legal frameworks. Polly: That’s true. But he nevertheless had an expansive view of nature and the need to protect the earth. His main concern there was with the tendency towards a homogenised culture; he was eager to celebrate the higher innate wisdom found in indigenous culture.
Watch Polly Higgins – TEDx Exeter
Brian: Ten years ago you were a regular lawyer appearing in the British court system, but that’s all changed. Why is that? Polly: In 2005 I was a barrister in the UK courts representing a man who had suffered a serious workplace injury. There was a moment of silence while we were waiting for the judges, and I looked out the window and thought “the earth has been badly injured and harmed too, and something needs to be done about that”. My next thought actually changed my life, “the earth needs a good lawyer too”. When I looked around for the tools that I could use to defend the earth in court, I realised those tools didn’t actually exist. But what if the earth had rights like we as humans have rights? International laws that criminalise genocide are now accepted as a valuable tool. Why couldn’t we also criminalise ecocide?
Brian: Are there any existing laws against ecocide? Polly: Vietnam suffered very badly with environmental devastation during the war years, so they introduced ecocide into their domestic law in 1990. The USSR had also incorporated ecocide provisions, so following the collapse of the USSR many of the newly independent nations maintained the provisions against ecocide. But ecological destruction crosses national boundaries, and is often caused by transnational corporations, so an international legal framework is needed.
Brian: During your research you found that the United Nations had been considering introducing a crime against nature for decades. What went wrong? Polly: In the leadup to the adoption of the Rome Statute which led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court, there were to be five core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression and ecocide. But last-minute lobbying – particularly by the US, UK, Netherlands and France – saw ecocide dropped from the Statute.
Brian: So what hope is there of ecocide being reintroduced? Polly: The Rome Statute can be reviewed in 2015, so right now is an important opportunity for the campaign to have the Statute amended. So far 122 nations – including Australia – are signatories to the Rome Statute. All it would take now to move the proposal forward is for one head of state to sponsor tabling of the draft legislation. There could then be a five year transitional period and the law could be fully operational by 2020.
Brian: Critics of the ecocide campaign have argued that in the case of the greatest environmental challenge that we face – climate change – there is no single perpetrator to be readily identified. Wouldn’t we all be criminalised in that case? Polly: That’s the beauty of the ecocide provisions. The law doesn’t have to accept the theory of human-induced climate change. Instead it looks at it holistically. Climate change is a symptom of damage to our ecosystems. The important thing is to put in place criminal law that leads to the abatement of dangerous industrial activity. And that’s where the ecocide provision is a game-changer. Prosecution for environmental damage under current national environmental law simply results in a fine, and corporations build that into their budgets. But with ecocide as a law enforced by the International Criminal Court, that would all be vastly different. The principle is known as “superior responsibility” – those who are at the top who make decisions are held to account in a criminal court of law. That includes corporate CEOs, heads of state, regional premiers and heads of financial institutions.
Brian: You see this as being a game-changer, and that there would be a dramatic improvement in environmental stewardship. But corporations have huge teams of fancy lawyers too. Are you confident that cases brought to court could be won? Or are you assuming that the deterrent effect alone would be sufficient? Polly: What is crucial here is that there is a test that has to be met – a test that can be examined in court for prosecution purposes. This is a crucial difference between civil and criminal law – it’s not a matter of fancy lawyers, it’s a matter of evidence being brought. It’s far harder to deny ecocide in the face of data, visual evidence and research that demonstrates an ecocide than, say, a crime of theft.
Brian: Some people see you as anti-development. Polly: That’s not at all the case. My goal is simply to provide a legal framework that enables corporate CEOs to become part of the team that protects our ecosystems. Currently the over-riding legal requirement for corporations is to maximise profits for shareholders. There comes a point when we say ‘this must stop’ – enough tipping points have been reached. Destroying the earth doesn’t work for humans, nature or corporations.
Polly Higgins at WOMADelaide 2014
Brian: Are any retrospective provisions included in the draft law? Polly: No – retrospectivity is not just. What is important is to give space for companies to turn around and be given the opportunity to have all the assistance they require to enable them to do so. That is why I propose a five year transition period.
Brian: So what’s to be done about people who are already suffering the effects of previous ecocide? Polly: There is a second type of ecocide defined in my proposed amendment that is equally important and very powerful – imputing a legal duty of care for naturally occurring ecocide. Island nations and countries like Bangladesh are being severely threatened by rising sea levels and intensifying storms. But when they appeal to the international community for help, they can be more or less ignored: “it’s not our responsibility”. But the ecocide provision create a legal duty of care for the international community to give assistance.
Brian: Thank you Polly. Our editor Dinyar, who interviewed you for the New Internationalist magazine in 2010, describes you as “the most indefatigable campaigner” and for that we’re eternally grateful.
Polly Higgins is visiting Australia in March 2014 and will be speaking at:
BrianLoffler 